"The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others" Deputy Bob Hill.............................................
Trevor Pitmans Blog.......................................BALDTRUTH"

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Met 'Interim' Report 2

DISMISSAL BY STEALTH?

We now look at the reply by Senator ILM to the written question by Deputy T.Pitman

WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

BY DEPUTY T.M. PITMAN OF ST. HELIER

ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 8th JUNE 2010

Question

“Following his undertaking on 25th May 2010, within his response to my written question, to ‘investigate and clarify’ the situation concerning the ‘Metropolitan Police Interim Report’, will the Minister now provide written confirmation of the following information:

(a) whether the document exists as a physical paper document and, if so, how many pages it has?

(b) does the document exist only as an electronic document and, if so, is this electronic document simply in the form of an e-mail?

(c) does an author’s name or names appear on it?

(d) is the document actually simply a series of preparatory notes?

(e) do the words 'Metropolitan Police Interim Report’ appear on the document as a title?

(f) when was it requested, compiled and received?”

Answer

(a) & (b)

The document consists of a cover, an index page and 17 pages of text. It was sent in electronic form as an attachment to an email at 15.27 on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer. It was never sent in paper form but was superseded by the full report which is dated 18th December 2008.

(c) Yes

(d)

No. The document is in the normal police report format with an index and numbered sections and sub-sections.

The ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended that a full review be conducted by an outside police force of the Historical Abuse Enquiry. Accordingly, on 6th August 2008, the now Acting Chief Officer of Police wrote to the Metropolitan Police Force requesting the production of such a report. Subsequently, detailed terms of reference were agreed for the production of the report and work commenced. The main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation to the conduct of individual investigations. It soon became apparent that serious issues were arising as to the previous management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry. Details of these concerns were passed on to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police who began to raise these with the Chief Officer of Police from September 2008 onwards. The now Acting Chief Officer of Police also began to share these concerns with other senior officials and with Deputy Andrew Lewis who became the Minister for Home Affairs. By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed. By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals. The concern was that serious cases might be stopped by the Royal Court because of the previous actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press. The Metropolitan Police then produced the Interim Report which they sent on 10th November 2008, to the now Acting Chief Officer of Police as an attachment to an email. The concerns of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A.

So now we have two people who have seen the now infamous Met Interim Report David Warcup & ILM

SECTION F is the part I want to look at. Lets start at the beginning

ACPO Homicide Working Party recommended a full review

It says "It soon became apparent that serious issues were arising as to the previous management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry." So what about the 4 ACPO reports and how did the ACPO Homicide group allow such serious failings when they were overseeing it and then recommend a full review.

Now we know Brian Sweeting from the Met sent the report on the 10th November 2008 what we also know, and i find this incredible, is they had not interviewed Andre Baker head of the ACPO team or SIO Lenny Harper before submitting this Interim Report. What were they using to get a balanced view? If the failings were so serious you would have thought they would like the full picture from both sides.

It says "The main purposes of the report were to advise on the management of the Historical Abuse Enquiry and to provide advice and guidance in relation to the conduct of individual investigations"

Well thats exactly why they ask for these reviews no investigation runs perfectly. The Met Interim report should never ever have been used in a disciplinary procedure but it was 'WHY'. If these report/reviews were used in such away no Chief Police Officer would ever commission one. How do we know that the issues are so serious, we get a hint of the allegations in Graham Powers judicial review but as Graham Powers Advisor says in Suspension Review 2 on VFC, there is a explanation for the issues raised. Why wasn't ILM interested in what Constable Brain was saying.

Now we must ask the Question who is advising ILM on police procedure? This is a very important question because how does ILM now how a police investigation should be run. I imagine an investigation run in the UK would be different to one run in Jersey. For a start our legal system is different to the UK,the police force is so small, what is the right way? or is it that there is no wrong way, you call in ACPO & NPIA for guidance and you get reviews done.

Who is telling ILM what is proper Police Procedure

It says "The now Acting Chief Officer of Police also began to share these concerns with other senior officials and with Deputy Andrew Lewis who became the Minister for Home Affairs. By early November 2008 the report was nearly completed. By that stage it had become apparent that some of the issues were so serious that they could prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals. The concern was that serious cases might be stopped by the Royal Court because of the previous actions of the former Deputy Chief Officer of Police. For that reason the now Acting Chief Officer of Police asked the Metropolitan Police Force to produce a report on what they had found up to that point so that a press conference could be held correcting issues relating to information which had previously been given to the press"

The Acting Chief Officer of Police began to share these concerns with Deputy Andrew Lewis who has informed me 'he didn't see the Met Interim Report' and we have Andrew Lewis telling Wiltshire he had no worries about the handling of the Abuse Investigation and then releasing a press statement in Feb 2010 saying did oops.

So serious were these issues that 'THEY COULD' I repeat that 'THEY COULD' prejudice the fair trial of certain individuals. So serious that cases' MIGHT BE STOPPED' I repeat 'MIGHT BE STOPPED' by the Royal Court. So the Acting Chief of Police DW asked the MET to produce a report so a press conference could be held. Now did David Warcup tell the Met that there report was going to be used in the suspension of the Chief of Police my guess is not a chance.

It says "The concerns of the now Acting Chief Officer of Police were fully vindicated by the judgment of the Royal Court in the matter of The Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A."

REALLY

I was in court for the pre-trial of Aubin and others and the Judgment by the judge is very interesting indeed. Now what the judge went off was a report/staement from a Media Expert brought in from the UK by Warcup and disclosed to the defence 'I BET IT WAS'.

This is what the judge said "16. It is very important to be clear why Mr Harper’s conduct has been criticised in Court and elsewhere. He is to be commended and not criticised for taking the allegations of child sex abuse seriously, for investigating them vigorously, and for making clear that anybody coming forward to give evidence would be treated sympathetically and professionally. No proper criticism of him could be advanced for any of that. The legitimate criticisms of him and the potential damage that he did to any inquiry or Court proceedings are best expressed not by me setting out my opinion but by the professional judgment of an outside expert who reviewed this aspect of the case in November 2008. That report has been disclosed to the defence in the course of these proceedings and I quote from its conclusion:-"

The Outside Expert was a media expert and this is what he said "

“From the outset statements released to the media suggested with the language of certainty that crimes had been committed and that there were many victims. For legal reasons, and in order to manage media coverage and public expectation, more temperate and non-judgmental language would have been more appropriate. Statements made in relation to the item recovered on February 23rd [JAR6] were not accurate and incited an enormous media coverage which at times was hysterical and sensational and was in turn equally inaccurate and misleading. The description of cellars, the voids under the flooring, was inaccurate and allowed the media to create a false impression in the public mindset. The description of an item recovered from Haut de la Garenne as “shackles” was not accurate. The language used to describe the bath could have been more accurate. The decision to display to the media a tooth recovered from Haut de la Garenne was highly unusual. The approach taken by the States of Jersey Police to releasing information about the teeth found was unusual, not consistent with normal working practice in the UK and encouraged further media reporting and speculation. Given the lack of evidence collated to prove that a child’s remains had been found at Haut de la Garenne, the statements made by States of Jersey Police could have been more accurately phrased and could have generated more measured and less prominent media coverage. The statement made by the States of Jersey Police regarding the two pits excavated at Haut de la Garenne was inappropriate. The nature and quantity of much of the media coverage was generated and sustained by the Police’s deliberate decision to provide a regular diet of information to the media. Some, but by no means all, the inaccurate media coverage published was challenged by the Force on a number of occasions the Deputy Chief Officer placed information and allegations into the public domain or responded to issues and allegations in the media which distracted attention from the child abuse investigation and this may have tarnished the reputation of the Force and weakened public confidence in the investigation and its professionalism.”

And the judge said

17. The potential damage to the Court process is illustrated by the fact that it has provided material for the powerfully advanced argument of Advocate Preston that the idea of long term, widespread torture and murder is so entrenched in the consciousness of potential jurors that it cannot be eradicated by any direction from the trial judge. He argues that jurors will either be convinced already that anyone charged must be guilty or they will feel that after this long and expensive inquiry “someone must pay”. This problem is heightened, he argues, because of the size of this jurisdiction. Before setting out my reasons for ultimately not finding his argument persuasive, I should make a preliminary comment. This is not a public inquiry into the conduct of the Police in general or Mr Harper in particular, I comment on his and their conduct only to the extent that it is relevant to the legal issues I have to determine.

Our outside media expert is called Mat Tapp his role must also be looked at seeing as he was paid with Taxpayers money in such a high profile investigation

All we are doing is looking for the Truth and i will leave you with this. In 2008 it was so very serious and in June 2010 nothing ILM is waiting for Graham Power to retire then bring some bits and pieces to the states. Now in my opinion that is a disgrace and a joke.

This is a question asked by the Deputy of St Mary regarding the UK Media Expert

In his reply to a written question from the Deputy of St. Martin on 23rd March 2010, the Minister referred to the lengthy quotation which forms part of the judgement in the matter of the Attorney General v. Aubin and others [2009] J.R.C. 035A. in the following terms “The quotation above which is attributed to an outside expert is a quotation from the report of an independent media expert who was called in to advise the States of Jersey Police on media related matters.” Would the Minister inform members who called for this report, when and why, who conducted it, how were those who undertook the review were selected and what their qualifications were? Will the Minister release the report to members as it has already been used in a public court judgement?

Answer

In September 2008 an external media consultant, experienced in working at ACPO level in the UK, was formally engaged by the then Deputy Chief of Police with the knowledge of the Chief Officer of Police to develop an appropriate external communication strategy regarding Operation Rectangle. This was primarily to ensure:

That trials and ongoing investigations were not compromised or challenged on the grounds of an abuse of process, based on the information supplied to the media by the States of Jersey Police.

That the public were presented with accurate facts.

The external media consultant gave advice on these matters and subsequently resigned from his role. He then produced a written report in relation to his advice. Other issues relating to the report fall both within the ambit of the enquiry being conducted by the Commissioner and the terms of the first Wiltshire Police Report and it is not appropriate for me to express an opinion thereon at this stage.

I will need to take advice as to whether I can properly release this report to Members at this time or at a time in the future and in what form.My position remains that I am keen to release as much information as possible to Members of the States and as soon as possible.

ps

Get your party hats ready and put a candle on the cake yup ILM'S little baby is nearly a year old, June 19th 2009

23 comments:

Anonymous
said...

I wonder which of those terrible unjustified criticisms of Gradwell made him so frustrated? Was it that he got it wrong about the cellars? Bob Hill is the latest to show him wrong on that. Was it that he was shown to be wrong about the bones and his "forgetting the 'Chamberlain' report? Or perhaps it was the criticism for calling the victims unreliable. Or even his comment that Lenny Harper should have ignored all the information, bones, teeth, and other evidence and just guessed that there was nothing there and walked away from HDLG? Of course, it could have been the suggestion that the victims were less than pleased with the way he treated them. It could also have been criticism of the way he mistakenly accused Lenny Harper of introducing the terms 'shackles' and the fact that he ignored the builders role in that saga. Or was it that he 'forgot' the ACPO reports? Such a sensitive soul. Well suited to wedding planning!!

Strange how a "media expert" knows better than the Association of Chief Police Officers who at all times were advising Lenny Harper and his team. Equally strange is the fact that David Warcup wanted to use the met "interim" report (if it exists) in some kind of disciplinary action against his boss.

But one of the strangest aspects of this particular case is how the "accredited" media, as in the JEP reported on it. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the case where the JEP went with the headline "Harper a disgrace"? quoting stuff from the defence lawyer as if he had won the bl00dy case! When the truth is he lost the case and two child molester failed in their appeal against their sentences, thanks to Lenny Harper and his team.

I remember writing something about this some time ago. Two child abusers get sent to prison thanks to Lenny Harper and his team, and instead of being a hero, he is a disgrace according to the JEP!.....Only in Jersey mate.....only in Jersey.

You ask a number of good questions but as always the answers are never forthcoming. What does deserve an answer is, who is advising Ian Le Marquand on Police Procedures? Please tell me it's not David Wacup! Do you know what? Judging by the complete shambles this is all turning out to be,I bet it is Warcup!

At the bottom of this blog post i have added a question asked by the Deputy of St Mary regarding the outside Media Expert.

So who could be advising ILM on what is proper police procedure? he is telling us how serious the issues are, but seeing as he is no expert in police procedures especially full blown investigations how does he know what is right or wrong

Anonymous - throughout all this sad and sorry state of affairs Mr Power has maintained a most honourable and dignified manner. This is a man who is a decorated and respected police officer, about to retire, and who has been subjected to the most dishonourable treatment by the States of Jersey.

Therefore Rico and others are quite right in wanting to get just closure on this matter. After all, if they don't who will it happen to next? Anybody who cares to rock the States of Jersey boat.

Ian Le Marquand seems to be way out of his depth and making a complete and utter fool of himself. He won't read relevant information, just what HE wants to. Yes Rico, a clown.

Rather than retiring early, was Mr Power not persuaded by our government to stay on for an extra two years?. They must have rated him highly then. What changed?. The poster at 2:18 pm above needs to catch up with the story so far.I have followed all the relevent blogs from day one and the amount of data is vast. Stuart Syvret has promoted his blogsite in handouts at the hustings and I can imagine the sore eyes of many as they finally open their minds to the amazing, well evidenced catalogue of mis-management and corruption in our island.

Don't be so harsh on the Farce Blog they have their place. All we can do is put it out there and let people make up their minds. I admire the guy who writes so many anonymous comments for his blog + i get a ripping lol love it.

I forgot to mention that i had a face to face chat with the previous Home Affairs Minister Andrew Lewis. We met at the St John husting, I introduced myself and explained what im doing.

Andrew Lewis explained that he didn't want anything to do with it and that ILM is the 'Corporate Parent/Soul' and should get on with it.

We had a 10 minute chat about certain issues and all that i can say is that he has washed his hands of it and was amazed at the length of time it was taking. He also said that the suspension was a Neutral Act and was also protecting Graham Power by this he meant he could fight the allegations and a proper process would be followed.

Now ILM is saying he will bring bits and pieces to the house when GP retires and on the last States Sitting before sumer recess.

Graham Power should have officially retired 3 years ago, But he was asked to continue, under his contract he has to retire by the end of this year so by going in the summer I wouldn't class that as early, when I'm led to believe that if he hadn't been suspended he would have retired last summer but put it off so there could be completion of the suspension process.That to me doesn't sound like a person who has something to hide.

I don't see how anyone with a open mind and looking at the available facts can defend either Mr Powers or Mr Day's suspension.

'Now we must ask the Question who is advising ILM on police procedure? This is a very important question because how does ILM now how a police investigation should be run. I imagine an investigation run in the UK would be different to one run in Jersey. For a start our legal system is different to the UK,the police force is so small, what is the right way? or is it that there is no wrong way, you call in ACPO & NPIA for guidance and you get reviews done'

I have found these Quotes from lenny harper about the met report that i think helps a little .."Ref my post a few minutes ago. My finger ran ahead of my brain. The point I was making was that neither myself, as senior investigating officer, or the Head of the ACPO Homicide Team who were reviewing my investigation had been yet interviewed by the Met when Gradwell and Warcup started quoting from the alleged report which was the basis for suspending Graham Power. A week after the suspension when they did get around to interviewing us they denied any such interim report existed to both of us. Of course, the Met team could have been lying but that does pose some questions about the credibility of a report which has been compiled without the views of the SIO and the head of the team quality controlling his investigation. If the Met are telling the truth then the whole reason for Graham Power's suspension was a massive lie.""Lenny Harper

11 November 2009 15:08

""The Met team responsible for this report interviewed me on the 17th November 2008, I challenged them about this so called interim report and they denied it existed. Gradwell and Warcup were not quoting from any report of theirs they said. The former head of the Met Homicide Team who was in the ACPO Review group also challenged them and received the same answer. I emailed them two days later and demanded that before they did complete any report they interview witnesses who would contradict the alleged events described by Warcup and Gradwell. They repied saying they would be in touch. I still have that e mail. I never heard from them but I know the report was delivered in December 2008. The nonsense of an interim report is complete fabrication."'Lenny Harper

one of the things ILM tries to hide behind is the Judicial Review. He always makes out that this vindicates his actions when all the Judicial Review is looking at is if correct procedure was followed not the evidence

Secondly, the Royal Court in a judgement given on 8th September 2009 expressed its “serious concern at the fairness of the procedure apparently adopted by the Previous Minister. He was dealing with the person holding the most senior position in the police force who had enjoyed a long and distinguished career. Bearing in mind the implications of suspension, we would have thought that fairness would dictate firstly Mr. Power being given a copy of the media briefing and Mr. Warcup’s letter and secondly an opportunity to be heard on whether there should be an investigation and, if so, whether he should be suspended during that investigation.” (Judgement paragraph 19.) In considering the implications of the Royal Court judgement members may have been misled by a statement which sought to imply that the Court had in some way found that the current Minister was “right” in maintaining the suspension. In a Judicial Review a Court will determine whether a Minister acted lawfully and within his powers. One test of this is “procedural fairness.” Courts do not pass judgement on the wisdom or cost-effectiveness of Ministerial decisions, only their legality. Thus the Court found that “the procedure adopted by the Minister in conducting his review was procedurally fair, in contrast we have to say, to the procedure apparently adopted by his predecessor in November 2008,” (paragraph 63.) Having considered all of the evidence the Court finally concluded that “there has been no abuse of the Ministers powers,” (paragraph 65.) It is suggested that members do not become distracted by the decision of the Court in the Judicial Review. This proposition is about the actions of the then Minister and others in November 2008 and what may have been done subsequently to conceal the truth of those events. The finding that the current Minister acted within his legal powers at a subsequent review is not relevant to the purpose of this proposition.